Ovarian cancer is among the most lethal gynecologic malignancies in developed countries. Annually in the United States alone, approximately 23,000 women are diagnosed with the disease and almost 14,000 women die from it. (Jamal, A., et al., CA Cancer J. Clin, 2002; 52:23-47). Despite progress in cancer therapy, ovarian cancer mortality has remained virtually unchanged over the past two decades. (Id.) Given the steep survival gradient relative to the stage at which the disease is diagnosed, early detection remains the most important factor in improving long-term survival of ovarian cancer patients.
The poor prognosis of ovarian cancer diagnosed at late stages, the cost and risk associated with confirmatory diagnostic procedures, and its relatively low prevalence in the general population together pose extremely stringent requirements on the sensitivity and specificity of a test for it to be used for screening for ovarian cancer in the general population.
The identification of tumor markers suitable for the early detection and diagnosis of cancer holds great promise to improve the clinical outcome of patients. It is especially important for patients presenting with vague or no symptoms or with tumors that are relatively inaccessible to physical examination. Despite considerable effort directed at early detection, no cost effective screening tests have been developed (Paley P J., Curr Opin Oncol, 2001; 13(5):399-402) and women generally present with disseminated disease at diagnosis. (Ozols R F, et al., Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Hoskins W J, Perez C A, Young R C, editors. Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 981-1057).
The best-characterized tumor marker, CA125, is negative in approximately 30-40% of stage I ovarian carcinomas and its levels are elevated in a variety of benign diseases. (Meyer T, et al., Br J Cancer, 2000; 82(9):1535-8; Buamah P., J Surg Oncol, 2000; 75(4):264-5; Tuxen M K, et al., Cancer Treat Rev, 1995; 21(3):215-45). Its use as a population-based screening tool for early detection and diagnosis of ovarian cancer is hindered by its low sensitivity and specificity. (MacDonald N D, et al., Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 1999; 82(2):155-7; Jacobs I, et al., Hum Reprod, 1989; 4(1):1-12; Shih I-M, et al., Tumor markers in ovarian cancer. In: Diamandis E P, Fritsche, H., Lilja, H., Chan, D. W., and Schwartz, M., editor. Tumor markers physiology, pathobiology, technology and clinical applications. Philadelphia: AACC). Although pelvic, and more recently, vaginal sonography has been used to screen high-risk patients, neither technique has sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be applied to the general population. (MacDonald N D, et al., supra). Recent efforts in using CA125 in combination with additional tumor markers (Woolas R P X F, et al., J Natl Cancer Inst, 1993; 85(21): 1748-51; Woolas R P, et al., Gynecol Oncol, 1995; 59(1): 111-6; Zhang Z, et al., Gynecol Oncol, 1999; 73(1):56-61; Zhang Z, et al., Use of Multiple Markers to Detect Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancers: Neural Network Analysis Improves Performance. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2001; Annual Meeting, Abstract) in a longitudinal risk of cancer model (Skates S J, et al., Cancer, 1995; 76(10 Suppl):2004-10), and in tandem with ultrasound as a second line test (Jacobs I D A, et al., Br Med J, 1993; 306(6884): 1030-34; Menon U TA, et al., British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2000; 107(2): 165-69) have shown promising results in improving overall test specificity, which is critical for a disease such as ovarian cancer that has a relatively low prevalence. See also Menon et al. J. Clin. Oncology (2005) 23(31):7919-26.
Due to the dismal prognosis of late stage ovarian cancer, it is the general consensus that a physician will accept a test with a minimal positive predictive value of 10%. (Bast, R. C., et al., Cancer Treatment and Research, 2002; 107:61-97). Extending this to the general population, a general screening test would require a sensitivity greater than 70% and a specificity of 99.6%. Currently, none of the existing serologic markers, such as CA125, CA72-4, or M-CSF, individually delivers such a performance. (Bast, R. C., et al., Int J Biol Markers, 1998; 13:179-87).
Thus, there is a critical need for new serological markers that individually or in combination with other markers or diagnostic modalities deliver the required sensitivity and specificity for early detection of ovarian cancer. (Bast R C, et al., Early detection of ovarian cancer: promise and reality. Ovarian Cancer: ISIS Medical Media Ltd., Oxford, UK).
Given the low incidence of ovarian cancer, a screening test intended for the asymptomatic woman with adequate positive predictive remains elusive. It has been demonstrated, however, that even in the absence of a general screening test, one factor that does improve long-term survival of patients with ovarian cancer is appropriate triage to the specialist gynecologic oncologist (Craig, CC et al, Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients, J Natl Canc Inst, 2006: 98, 172-80). This is particularly true of women who present to their physician with symptoms suggestive of a pelvic mass.
Thus, it is desirable to have a reliable and accurate method of determining the ovarian cancer status in patients, the results of which can then be used to manage subject treatment.